Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) This is an assigned matter has been appearing on the list for quite some time. None appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the corporation is present. After going through the writ petition and the interlocutory application is taken out in connection therewith, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where high prerogative writ powers should be exercised. There is no reason for permitting the petitioner to invoke the extra-ordinary, writ jurisdiction of this court.
(2.) The petitioner has taken out the writ petition contending that in view of the promises and assurances given by the corporation regarding fixation of rent through negotiation, mandamus should be issued directing the corporation to increase the rent, char the rent arrears, and release the unauthorisedly occupied area. The case of the petitioner is that by not increasing rent consequent upon negotiation meeting held on November 8th, 1999, by not paying rent arrears, and by not releasing certain area allegedly occupied by the corporation unauthorisedly, the corporation acted illegally and arbitrarily. It is his further case that since the corporation is a state within the meaning of art 12 of the Constitution of India, not only it is not entitled to go back on its promises and assurances, but it is also under an obligation to act fairly and reasonably.
(3.) Counsel for the corporation submits that admittedly the tenancy is governed by the West Bengal Premiscs Tenancy Act, 1997, and hence if the petitioner- wants increase in rent, he has to approach the rent controller for fixation of fair rent. He relies on an unreported division bench decision dated October 14th, 1993 given in Appeal No. 618 of 1992 (Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. M/s. G.S Atwal & Co. & Anr.), and I find that he is right in saying that in view of the relationship between the parties (landlord and tenant), the remedy of the petitioner, with respect to the things noted hereinbefore, if any, is only before the appropriate civil court.;